User talk:WyrmUK

February 2013[edit]

Hello, WyrmUK. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how changing the Name of an organisation that I'm involved with to reflect what is the Official Name as per its rules can result in a conflict of interest. You're being very heavy handed. -- WyrmUK (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration and stuff[edit]

Hi, as another WikiProject Motorcycling member I'm offering a defense of other members' actions and/or free advice for you ... I think we're all being extra cautious over the Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club apostrophe issue because of past problems with what started as picayune issues like this. Take this advice in the spirit of nipping conflict in the bud. Another editor had a conflict around fuel terminology that eventually led to his retirement from Wikipedia; another was an article move without consensus that eventually led to his being indef blocked. We'd hate for that to happen to a productive contributor. Cheers. — Brianhe (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure I would consider that a defence. If you want more people to contribute to Wikipedia then prolific editors need to take it upon themselves to explain things a bit more to those editors who have made only a few changes and might not know all the ins and out of the rather complicated editing process (not just revert and put a few words as a comment). I.e. encourage them to edit properly and be helpful, and give them pointers. Your recent post has been helpful, as has Dennis Bratland's latest on the TOMCC page - maybe the editor in question should take a leaf out of those. Given the attitude I've received from the editor in question, not just now but previously, I've been rather put off contributing to Wikipedia - it's just not worth the hassle. — WyrmUk 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.232.32 (talk) [reply]

Are you back now? — Brianhe (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. My treatment on here has been pretty poor considering that I'm really still a newbie. I'm about to mark the TOMCC page as out of date (hopefully correctly) and update the TOMCC Logo copyright (as it's actually my image that has been uploaded), but that's about it for now. Wyrm (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of claim of permission?[edit]

Hi. Can you tell me the basis for this edit, please? For an image to be considered "free" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, we require a statement of permission from the copyright holder similar to the one at WP:CONSENT. The guide Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has more information about how to go about requesting permission. --B (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The basis for the edit is that I, personally, created the image from scratch in Photoshop (and have the PSD files) many years ago thus I am the content creator and copyright holder. I really don't have time to go through all of this so I will take your revocation of the edit as revoking permission. Thus the image is currently being used without permission of the copyright holder. Wyrm (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

date of ref[edit]

Could you state why you changed the date of this from 29? What did I do wrong?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay. The article was updated on the 29th but was originally written on the 9th. By using the updated date it makes it look like the story was reported after other events when in fact it was reported before. Wyrm (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no response to my reply but I see you since reverted and was a bit snotty about it. I had a valid reason - if the referenced article was updated today would you cite it as being published today, or when it was first published? Wyrm (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the notice above, I now remember seeing the queried aspect a long time ago. I might as well add that I don't understand your edit summary "...to correct statements that the references gave no evidence for" - again what did I do wrong?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was because the article originally attributed going into administration directly to the HMRC action but none of the quoted sources stated or gave any evidence for that. In fact the sources stated that HMRC had given Norton more time to pay so it can't be implied that the action was the direct cause. Wyrm (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; considering that I only cited it on 30th, I couldn't possibly know what the version dated 9th allegedly implied - and neither do you, so I would never then or now quote the patently 'wrong' date. Smells like you were challenging the validity of the article content; in that case you should have gone about it in a different way. There is no '9th' version lodged at wayback, either. I've now removed this Talk page from my Watchlist.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th January occurs after the 9th January so you would have known about the original date of the article. The Wayback machine doesn't take snapshots every time a page is published or changed and can't be relied on to prove content at a specific date other than the accessed date. The article states it is "By Tom Pegden Leicester Mercury business editor 03:00, 9 JAN 2020 UPDATED 18:54, 29 JAN 2020" which is pretty definitive and was what was shown when the article was accessed. You can't suggest that an article was written on a specific date just because it was updated then. Wikipedia is not a place to have an agenda and neither is it a place to make and persist with incorrect statements. Wyrm (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However that wasn't what this edit referred to. It was a correction of the wording to remove any confusion that arose from how it was originally worded. I'm not going to repeat what I put above but attributing the collapse of Norton to the HMRC action is wrong given the sources quoted and smacks of having an agenda. Wyrm (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar that no other editor has EVER argued about revision date, AND every time you turn up you want to cause commotion. That's what happens with WP - years on no-one would ever look at the ref date(s) and implied meanings. I surmise by agenda you are referring to yourself.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep any agenda you have off WP and off my talk page. Your statement is a lie and can easily be verified as such. Wyrm (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]